| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Pensioners
13. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What steps he is taking to ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [107200]
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We are committed to taking action to find more effective ways of encouraging eligible pensioners to claim their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we will shortly announce our decisions on the Government-sponsored national take-up campaign. We hope to do so next week.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. However, given that it is now almost 17 months since the Secretary of State said that the NIRS2 computer breakdown, which deprived 285,000 pensioners of their just entitlements, would be resolved "in the next couple of weeks", will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that those payments, unlike Billy Bunter's postal order, will arrive; that full interest will be paid on top of them; and that Government coffers will not profit by so much as a single penny from this woeful saga of ministerial incompetence?
Mr. Rooker: It is not our intention that the Government should benefit from the inherited disaster of NIRS2. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a regular attender at Question Time, I said a couple of weeks ago that we had not met the target of clearing the entire backlog, and that there were 83,000 people still to be paid. We are convinced that their payments will be brought fully up to date before the end of the year. We regret the delay. The compensation payments are being paid to people who have experienced delays to their pension payments. The entire saga is very much regretted. That it why it is important that we get to the bottom of it. We must make sure that we do not overload the system in future, so that it can deliver regular payments to our pensioners.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): To solve the problem and ensure that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled, would it not be easier to lift the state pension?
Mr. Rooker: I can tell my hon. Friend that it would not. We could raise the state pension to the level of the minimum income guarantee, but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it would not benefit the 1.6 million people who already get it. They would lose pound for pound. Also, it would cost £3 billion to do that. As I said earlier, the average income of a single pensioner
in 1997-98 was £132 net. I can think, as can my hon. Friends, of much better ways of using £3 billion in the social security system, such as by targeting help at those who really need it.Vibration White Finger
14. Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): If he will list the functions of his Department in relation to those suffering from vibration white finger. [107201]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): The Department's function in relation to vibration white finger is to administer the industrial injuries scheme to employed earners who have been disabled by the disease. People could also apply for other social security benefits, depending on their individual circumstances. Payment of damages awarded by the courts for this disease to employees of British Coal is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Mr. Dalyell: Against the background of the constructive meeting in Cardiff today with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, and the meeting convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) with two distinguished doctors, which some of us attended last week, could the Government do something to speed up the payments to coal miners and shale miners, who have the feeling--it may not be justified, but they have the feeling none the less--that people are waiting until they pass on before awarding the compensation that is surely due to them?
Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for notifying me this morning of the nature of his supplementary question. I hope that progress was made in Cardiff today. Delays have to do with the courts process, although departmental responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's comments are referred to it.
If our legal system worked as quickly as our social security system, we would not be considering the issues of recovery because those responsible for the industrial environment in which people contracted the disease, not the state, would pay compensation.
Business of the House
3.31 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I shall make a short business statement. The business for the rest of the week will be as follows:
Tuesday 8 February--Programme motion followed by proceedings on the Northern Ireland Bill 2000, instead of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 9 February--Programme motion followed by conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
Thursday 10 February--Second Reading of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.
Friday 11 February--Private Members' Bills.
Apart from tomorrow, all the business will be as previously announced. However, the House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
As the right hon. Lady knows, the Opposition have called for the suspension of the Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly, following the lack of satisfactory progress on decommissioning. We therefore agree with the proposed change in business and will support the Bill tomorrow.
Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove):
There is a sense of foreboding in my party about the necessity of undertaking the Northern Ireland Bill. We do not approach the matter with any enjoyment or glee; we are worried about the course on which it takes all parts of the United Kingdom. However, we believe that the measure is necessary, and we support the Leader of the House.
Mrs. Beckett:
The Government are grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) for their remarks. They are right to say that the matter is difficult and important. However, we are glad to have support on it across the House.
Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe):
Does the right hon. Lady agree that our consideration of the Bill tomorrow would be greatly assisted if we had sight of the
Mrs. Beckett:
I shall draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that those matters were aired during my right hon. Friend's statement the other day; they will, no doubt, be aired tomorrow.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire):
I cannot conceive that any hon. Member would wish to delay unduly the passage of the Bill tomorrow, given the seriousness of the issues that it addresses. I therefore urge the Leader of the House to allow as generous a programme motion as possible. There are advantages to allowing a reasonable debate here within the limits that the Government set, rather than leaving hon. Members to feel that they have not had the opportunity to say what is on their hearts at this time.
Mrs. Beckett:
The Government are not seeking to curtail debate unduly. The right hon. Gentleman will note that I have announced a programme motion. With good will across the House, hon. Members will have the opportunity to raise the points that they wish to make.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Can the right hon. Lady say when Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Discipline) Bill will take place? Will it be next week, or will the measure be kicked into the long grass? Many of us have little sympathy for bringing British service discipline into line with the view of the European Court of Human Rights.
Mrs. Beckett:
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I shall make the ordinary business statement on Thursday.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset):
Will there be an opportunity tomorrow to discuss whether we should suspend the release of terrorist prisoners at the same time as suspending the Executive?
Mrs. Beckett:
The scope of the debate is a matter for the legislation and for the Chair. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that I hope that tomorrow's debate will be conducted in the spirit and the mood that is, I think, that of the House and the country. Everyone wishes to facilitate the continuation of the peace process, not bring it to a halt.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |